Melatonin and agomelatine for preventing seasonal affective disorder.

BACKGROUND: Seasonal affective disorder (SAD) is a seasonal pattern of recurrent major depressive episodes that most commonly starts in autumn or winter and remits in spring. The prevalence of SAD depends on latitude and ranges from 1.5% to 9%. The predictable seasonal aspect of SAD provides a promising opportunity for prevention in people who have a history of SAD. This is one of four reviews on the efficacy and safety of interventions to prevent SAD; we focus on agomelatine and melatonin as preventive interventions. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of agomelatine and melatonin (in comparison with each other, placebo, second-generation antidepressants, light therapy, psychological therapy or lifestyle interventions) in preventing SAD and improving person-centred outcomes among adults with a history of SAD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE (1950- ), Embase (1974- ), PsycINFO (1967- ) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) to 19 June 2018. An earlier search of these databases was conducted via the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trial Register (CCMD-CTR) (all years to 11 August 2015). Furthermore, we searched the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database and international trial registers (to 19 June 2018). We also conducted a grey literature search and handsearched the reference lists of included studies and pertinent review articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: To examine efficacy, we included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on adults with a history of winter-type SAD who were free of symptoms at the beginning of the study. For adverse events, we intended also to include non-randomised studies. We planned to include studies that compared agomelatine versus melatonin, or agomelatine or melatonin versus placebo, any second-generation antidepressant, light therapy, psychological therapies or lifestyle changes. We also intended to compare melatonin or agomelatine in combination with any of the comparator interventions mentioned above versus the same comparator intervention as monotherapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened abstracts and full-text publications, abstracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies independently. We intended to pool data in a meta-analysis using a random-effects model, but included only one study. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 3745 citations through electronic searches and reviews of reference lists after deduplication of search results. We excluded 3619 records during title and abstract review and assessed 126 full-text papers for inclusion in the review. Only one study, providing data of 225 participants, met our eligibility criteria and compared agomelatine (25 mg/day) with placebo. We rated it as having high risk of attrition bias because nearly half of the participants left the study before completion. We rated the certainty of the evidence as very low for all outcomes, because of high risk of bias, indirectness, and imprecision.The main analysis based on data of 199 participants rendered an indeterminate result with wide confidence intervals (CIs) that may encompass both a relevant reduction as well as a relevant increase of SAD incidence by agomelatine (risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.34; 199 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Also the severity of SAD may be similar in both groups at the end of the study with a mean SIGH-SAD (Structured Interview Guide for the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, Seasonal Affective Disorders) score of 8.3 (standard deviation (SD) 9.4) in the agomelatine group and 10.1 (SD 10.6) in the placebo group (mean difference (MD) -1.80, 95% CI -4.58 to 0.98; 199 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The incidence of adverse events and serious adverse events may be similar in both groups. In the agomelatine group, 64 out of 112 participants experienced at least one adverse event, while 61 out of 113 did in the placebo group (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.34; 225 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Three out of 112 patients experienced serious adverse events in the agomelatine group, compared to 4 out of 113 in the placebo group (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.17 to 3.30; 225 participants; very low-certainty evidence).No data on quality of life or interpersonal functioning were reported. We did not identify any studies on melatonin. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Given the uncertain evidence on agomelatine and the absence of studies on melatonin, no conclusion about efficacy and safety of agomelatine and melatonin for prevention of SAD can currently be drawn. The decision for or against initiating preventive treatment of SAD and the treatment selected should consider patient preferences and reflect on the evidence base of all available treatment options.

Psychological therapies for preventing seasonal affective disorder.

BACKGROUND: Seasonal affective disorder (SAD) is a seasonal pattern of recurrent major depressive episodes that most commonly occurs during autumn or winter and remits in spring. The prevalence of SAD ranges from 1.5% to 9%, depending on latitude. The predictable seasonal aspect of SAD provides a promising opportunity for prevention. This is one of four reviews on the efficacy and safety of interventions to prevent SAD; we focus on psychological therapies as preventive interventions. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of psychological therapies (in comparison with no treatment, other types of psychological therapy, second-generation antidepressants, light therapy, melatonin or agomelatine or lifestyle interventions) in preventing SAD and improving person-centred outcomes among adults with a history of SAD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE (1950- ), Embase (1974- ), PsycINFO (1967- ) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) to 19 June 2018. An earlier search of these databases was conducted via the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trial Register (CCMD-CTR) (all years to 11 August 2015). Furthermore, we searched the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database and international trial registers (to 19 June 2018). We also conducted a grey literature search and handsearched the reference lists of included studies and pertinent review articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: To examine efficacy, we included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on adults with a history of winter-type SAD who were free of symptoms at the beginning of the study. To examine adverse events, we intended to include non-randomised studies. We planned to include studies that compared psychological therapy versus no treatment, or any other type of psychological therapy, light therapy, second-generation antidepressants, melatonin, agomelatine or lifestyle changes. We also planned to compare psychological therapy in combination with any of the comparator interventions listed above versus no treatment or the same comparator intervention as monotherapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened abstracts and full-text publications against the inclusion criteria, independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and graded the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 3745 citations through electronic searches and reviews of reference lists after deduplication of search results. We excluded 3619 records during title and abstract review and assessed 126 articles at full-text review for eligibility. We included one controlled study enrolling 46 participants. We rated this RCT at high risk for performance and detection bias due to a lack of blinding.The included RCT compared preventive use of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) with treatment as usual (TAU) in participants with a history of SAD. MBCT was administered in spring in eight weekly individual 45- to 60-minute sessions. In the TAU group participants did not receive any preventive treatment but were invited to start light therapy as first depressive symptoms occurred. Both groups were assessed weekly for occurrence of a new depressive episode measured with the Inventory of Depressive Syptomatology-Self-Report (IDS-SR, range 0-90) from September 2011 to mid-April 2012. The incidence of a new depressive episode in the upcoming winter was similar in both groups. In the MBCT group 65% of 23 participants developed depression (IDS-SR ≥ 20), compared to 74% of 23 people in the TAU group (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 1.30; 46 participants; very low quality-evidence).For participants with depressive episodes, severity of depression was comparable between groups. Participants in the MBCT group had a mean score of 26.5 (SD 7.0) on the IDS-SR, and TAU participants a mean score of 25.3 (SD 6.3) (mean difference (MD) 1.20, 95% CI -3.44 to 5.84; 32 participants; very low quality-evidence).The overall discontinuation rate was similar too, with 17% discontinuing in the MBCT group and 13% in the TAU group (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.34 to 5.30; 46 participants; very low quality-evidence).Reasons for downgrading the quality of evidence included high risk of bias of the included study and imprecision.Investigators provided no information on adverse events. We could not find any studies that compared psychological therapy with other interventions of interest such as second-generation antidepressants, light therapy, melatonin or agomelatine. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence on psychological therapies to prevent the onset of a new depressive episode in people with a history of SAD is inconclusive. We identified only one study including 46 participants focusing on one type of psychological therapy. Methodological limitations and the small sample size preclude us from drawing a conclusion on benefits and harms of MBCT as a preventive intervention for SAD. Given that there is no comparative evidence for psychological therapy versus other preventive options, the decision for or against initiating preventive treatment of SAD and the treatment selected should be strongly based on patient preferences and other preventive interventions that are supported by evidence.

Second-generation antidepressants for preventing seasonal affective disorder in adults.

BACKGROUND: Seasonal affective disorder (SAD) is a seasonal pattern of recurrent major depressive episodes that most commonly occurs during autumn or winter and remits in spring. The prevalence of SAD ranges from 1.5% to 9%, depending on latitude. The predictable seasonal aspect of SAD provides a promising opportunity for prevention. This review - one of four reviews on efficacy and safety of interventions to prevent SAD - focuses on second-generation antidepressants (SGAs). OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of SGAs (in comparison with other SGAs, placebo, light therapy, melatonin or agomelatine, psychological therapies or lifestyle interventions) in preventing SAD and improving patient-centred outcomes among adults with a history of SAD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE (1950- ), Embase (1974- ), PsycINFO (1967- ) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) to 19 June 2018. An earlier search of these databases was conducted via the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trial Register (CCMD-CTR) (all years to 11 August 2015). Furthermore, we searched the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database and international trial registers (to 19 June 2018). We also conducted a grey literature search and handsearched the reference lists of included studies and pertinent review articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: For efficacy, we included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on adults with a history of winter-type SAD who were free of symptoms at the beginning of the study. For adverse events, we planned to include non-randomised studies. Eligible studies compared a SGA versus another SGA, placebo, light therapy, psychological therapy, melatonin, agomelatine or lifestyle changes. We also intended to compare SGAs in combination with any of the comparator interventions versus placebo or the same comparator intervention as monotherapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened abstracts and full-text publications, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. When data were sufficient, we conducted random-effects (Mantel-Haenszel) meta-analyses. We assessed statistical heterogeneity by calculating the Chi2 statistic and the Cochran Q. We used the I2 statistic to estimate the magnitude of heterogeneity. We assessed publication bias by using funnel plots.We rated the strength of the evidence using the system developed by the GRADE Working Group. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 3745 citations after de-duplication of search results and excluded 3619 records during title and abstract reviews. We assessed 126 full-text papers for inclusion in the review, of which four publications (on three RCTs) providing data from 1100 people met eligibility criteria for this review. All three RCTs had methodological limitations due to high attrition rates.Overall, moderate-quality evidence indicates that bupropion XL is an efficacious intervention for prevention of recurrence of depressive episodes in people with a history of SAD (risk ratio (RR) 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 0.72; 3 RCTs, 1100 participants). However, bupropion XL leads to greater risk of headaches (moderate-quality evidence), insomnia and nausea (both low-quality evidence) when compared with placebo. Numbers needed to treat for additional beneficial outcomes (NNTBs) vary by baseline risks. For a population with a yearly recurrence rate of 30%, the NNTB is 8 (95% CI 6 to 12). For populations with yearly recurrence rates of 50% and 60%, NNTBs are 5 (95% CI 4 to 7) and 4 (95% CI 3 to 6), respectively.We could find no studies on other SGAs and no studies comparing SGAs with other interventions of interest, such as light therapy, psychological therapies, melatonin or agomelatine. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence indicates that bupropion XL is an effective intervention for prevention of recurrence of SAD. Nevertheless, even in a high-risk population, three out of four people will not benefit from preventive treatment with bupropion XL and will be at risk for harm. Clinicians need to discuss with patients advantages and disadvantages of preventive SGA treatment, and might want to consider offering other potentially efficacious interventions, which might confer a lower risk of adverse events. Given the lack of comparative evidence, the decision for or against initiating preventive treatment of SAD and the treatment selected should be strongly based on patient preferences.Future researchers need to assess the effectiveness and risk of harms of SGAs other than bupropion for prevention of SAD. Investigators also need to compare benefits and harms of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions.

Light therapy for preventing seasonal affective disorder.

BACKGROUND: Seasonal affective disorder (SAD) is a seasonal pattern of recurrent major depressive episodes that most commonly occurs during autumn or winter and remits in spring. The prevalence of SAD ranges from 1.5% to 9%, depending on latitude. The predictable seasonal aspect of SAD provides a promising opportunity for prevention. This review - one of four reviews on efficacy and safety of interventions to prevent SAD - focuses on light therapy as a preventive intervention. Light therapy is a non-pharmacological treatment that exposes people to artificial light. Mode of delivery and form of light vary. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of light therapy (in comparison with no treatment, other types of light therapy, second-generation antidepressants, melatonin, agomelatine, psychological therapies, lifestyle interventions and negative ion generators) in preventing SAD and improving patient-centred outcomes among adults with a history of SAD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE (1950- ), Embase (1974- ), PsycINFO (1967- ) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) to 19 June 2018. An earlier search of these databases was conducted via the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trial Register (CCMD-CTR) (all years to 11 August 2015). Furthermore, we searched the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database and international trial registers (to 19 June 2018). We also conducted a grey literature search and handsearched the reference lists of included studies and pertinent review articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: For efficacy, we included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on adults with a history of winter-type SAD who were free of symptoms at the beginning of the study. For adverse events, we also intended to include non-randomised studies. We intended to include studies that compared any type of light therapy (e.g. bright white light, administered by visors or light boxes, infrared light, dawn stimulation) versus no treatment/placebo, second-generation antidepressants, psychological therapies, melatonin, agomelatine, lifestyle changes, negative ion generators or another of the aforementioned light therapies. We also planned to include studies that looked at light therapy in combination with any comparator intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened abstracts and full-text publications, independently abstracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 3745 citations after de-duplication of search results. We excluded 3619 records during title and abstract review. We assessed 126 full-text papers for inclusion in the review, but only one study providing data from 46 people met our eligibility criteria. The included RCT had methodological limitations. We rated it as having high risk of performance and detection bias because of lack of blinding, and as having high risk of attrition bias because study authors did not report reasons for dropouts and did not integrate data from dropouts into the analysis.The included RCT compared preventive use of bright white light (2500 lux via visors), infrared light (0.18 lux via visors) and no light treatment. Overall, white light and infrared light therapy reduced the incidence of SAD numerically compared with no light therapy. In all, 43% (6/14) of participants in the bright light group developed SAD, as well as 33% (5/15) in the infrared light group and 67% (6/9) in the non-treatment group. Bright light therapy reduced the risk of SAD incidence by 36%; however, the 95% confidence interval (CI) was very broad and included both possible effect sizes in favour of bright light therapy and those in favour of no light therapy (risk ratio (RR) 0.64, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.38; 23 participants, very low-quality evidence). Infrared light reduced the risk of SAD by 50% compared with no light therapy, but the CI was also too broad to allow precise estimations of effect size (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.17; 24 participants, very low-quality evidence). Comparison of both forms of preventive light therapy versus each other yielded similar rates of incidence of depressive episodes in both groups (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.50 to 3.28; 29 participants, very low-quality evidence). Reasons for downgrading evidence quality included high risk of bias of the included study, imprecision and other limitations, such as self-rating of outcomes, lack of checking of compliance throughout the study duration and insufficient reporting of participant characteristics.Investigators provided no information on adverse events. We could find no studies that compared light therapy versus other interventions of interest such as second-generation antidepressants, psychological therapies, melatonin or agomelatine. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence on light therapy as preventive treatment for people with a history of SAD is limited. Methodological limitations and the small sample size of the only available study have precluded review author conclusions on effects of light therapy for SAD. Given that comparative evidence for light therapy versus other preventive options is limited, the decision for or against initiating preventive treatment of SAD and the treatment selected should be strongly based on patient preferences.

Comparative Benefits and Harms of Complementary and Alternative Medicine Therapies for Initial Treatment of Major Depressive Disorder: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To report the comparative benefits and harms of exercise and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) treatments with second-generation antidepressants (SGA) for major depressive disorder (MDD). DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. SETTINGS: Outpatient clinics. SUBJECTS: Adults, aged 18 years and older, with MDD receiving an initial treatment attempt with SGA. INTERVENTIONS: Any CAM or exercise intervention compared with an SGA. OUTCOME MEASURES: Treatment response, remission, change in depression rating, adverse events, treatment discontinuation, and treatment discontinuation due to adverse events. RESULTS: We found 22 randomized controlled trials for direct comparisons and 127 trials for network meta-analyses, including trials of acupuncture, omega-3 fatty acids, S-adenosyl methionine, St. John's wort, and exercise. For most treatment comparisons, we found no differences between treatment groups for response and remission. However, the risk of bias of these studies led us to conclude that the strength of evidence for these findings was either low or insufficient. The risk of treatment harms and treatment discontinuation attributed to adverse events was higher for selective serotonin receptor inhibitors than for St. John's wort. CONCLUSIONS: Although we found little difference in the comparative efficacy of most CAM therapies or exercise and SGAs, the overall poor quality of the available evidence base tempers any conclusions that we might draw from those trials. Future trials should incorporate patient-oriented outcomes, treatment expectancy, depressive severity, and harms assessments into their designs; antidepressants should be administered over their full dosage ranges; and larger trials using methods to reduce sampling bias are needed.

Preventing and De-escalating Aggressive Behavior Among Adult Psychiatric Patients: A Systematic Review of the Evidence.

OBJECTIVE: The project goal was to compare the effectiveness of strategies to prevent and de-escalate aggressive behaviors among psychiatric patients in acute care settings, including interventions for reducing use of seclusion and restraint. METHODS: Relevant databases were systematically reviewed for comparative studies of violence prevention and de-escalation strategies involving adult psychiatric patients in acute care settings. Studies (trials and cohort studies) were required to report on aggression or seclusion or restraint outcomes. Both risk of bias, an indicator of quality of individual studies, and strength of evidence (SOE) for each outcome were independently assessed by two study personnel. RESULTS: Seventeen primary studies met inclusion criteria. Evidence was limited for benefits and harms; information about characteristics that might modify the interventions' effectiveness, such as race or ethnicity, was especially limited. All but one study had a medium or high risk of bias and thus presented worrisome limitations. For prevention, risk assessment reduced both aggression and use of seclusion and restraint (low SOE), and multimodal interventions reduced the use of seclusion and restraint (low SOE). SOE for all other interventions, whether aimed at preventing or de-escalating aggression, and for modifying characteristics was insufficient. CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence about strategies for preventing and de-escalating aggressive behavior among psychiatric patients is very limited. Two preventive strategies, risk assessment and multimodal interventions consistent with the Six Core Strategies principles, may effectively lower aggressive behavior and use of seclusion and restraint, but more research is needed on how best to prevent and de-escalate aggressive behavior in acute care settings.

Comparative Benefits and Harms of Antidepressant, Psychological, Complementary, and Exercise Treatments for Major Depression: An Evidence Report for a Clinical Practice Guideline From the American College of Physicians.

BACKGROUND: Primary care patients and clinicians may prefer options other than second-generation antidepressants for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). The comparative benefits and harms of antidepressants and alternative treatments are unclear. PURPOSE: To compare the benefits and harms of second-generation antidepressants and psychological, complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), and exercise treatments as first- and second-step interventions for adults with acute MDD. DATA SOURCES: English-, German-, and Italian-language studies from multiple electronic databases (January 1990 to September 2015); trial registries and gray-literature databases were used to identify unpublished research. STUDY SELECTION: Two investigators independently selected comparative randomized trials of at least 6 weeks' duration on health outcomes of adult outpatients; nonrandomized studies were eligible for harms. DATA EXTRACTION: Reviewers abstracted data on study design, participants, interventions, and outcomes; rated the risk of bias; and graded the strength of evidence. A senior reviewer confirmed data and ratings. DATA SYNTHESIS: 45 trials met inclusion criteria. On the basis of moderate-strength evidence, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and antidepressants led to similar response rates (relative risk [RR], 0.90 [95% CI, 0.76 to 1.07]) and remission rates (RR, 0.98 [CI, 0.73 to 1.32]). In trials, antidepressants had higher risks for adverse events than most other treatment options; no information from nonrandomized studies was available. The evidence was too limited to make firm conclusions about differences in the benefits and harms of antidepressants compared with other treatment options as first-step therapies for acute MDD. For second-step therapies, different switching and augmentation strategies provided similar symptom relief. LIMITATION: High dropout rates, dosing inequalities, small sample sizes, and poor assessment of adverse events limit confidence in the evidence. CONCLUSION: Given their similar efficacy, CBT and antidepressants are both viable choices for initial treatment of MDD. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Comparative benefits and harms of second generation antidepressants and cognitive behavioral therapies in initial treatment of major depressive disorder: systematic review and meta-analysis.

STUDY QUESTION: What are the benefits and harms of second generation antidepressants and cognitive behavioral therapies (CBTs) in the initial treatment of a current episode of major depressive disorder in adults? METHODS: This was a systematic review including qualitative assessment and meta-analyses using random and fixed effects models. Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, PsycINFO, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature were searched from January 1990 through January 2015. The 11 randomized controlled trials included compared a second generation antidepressant CBT. Ten trials compared antidepressant monotherapy with CBT alone; three compared antidepressant monotherapy with antidepressant plus CBT. SUMMARY ANSWER AND LIMITATIONS: Meta-analyses found no statistically significant difference in effectiveness between second generation antidepressants and CBT for response (risk ratio 0.91, 0.77 to 1.07), remission (0.98, 0.73 to 1.32), or change in 17 item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression score (weighted mean difference, -0.38, -2.87 to 2.10). Similarly, no significant differences were found in rates of overall study discontinuation (risk ratio 0.90, 0.49 to 1.65) or discontinuation attributable to lack of efficacy (0.40, 0.05 to 2.91). Although more patients treated with a second generation antidepressant than receiving CBT withdrew from studies because of adverse events, the difference was not statistically significant (risk ratio 3.29, 0.42 to 25.72). No conclusions could be drawn about other outcomes because of lack of evidence. Results should be interpreted cautiously given the low strength of evidence for most outcomes. The scope of this review was limited to trials that enrolled adult patients with major depressive disorder and compared a second generation antidepressant with CBT, and many of the included trials had methodological shortcomings that may limit confidence in some of the findings. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS: Second generation antidepressants and CBT have evidence bases of benefits and harms in major depressive disorder. Available evidence suggests no difference in treatment effects of second generation antidepressants and CBT, either alone or in combination, although small numbers may preclude detection of small but clinically meaningful differences. Funding, competing interests, data sharing This project was funded under contract from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality by the RTI-UNC Evidence-based Practice Center. Detailed methods and additional information are available in the full report, available at http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/.

Second-generation antidepressants for preventing seasonal affective disorder in adults.

BACKGROUND: Seasonal affective disorder (SAD) is a seasonal pattern of recurrent major depressive episodes that most commonly occurs during autumn or winter and remits in spring. The prevalence of SAD ranges from 1.5% to 9%, depending on latitude. The predictable seasonal aspect of SAD provides a promising opportunity for prevention. This review - one of four reviews on efficacy and safety of interventions to prevent SAD - focuses on second-generation antidepressants (SGAs). OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of second-generation antidepressants (in comparison with other SGAs, placebo, light therapy, melatonin or agomelatine, psychological therapies or lifestyle interventions) in preventing SAD and improving patient-centred outcomes among adults with a history of SAD. SEARCH METHODS: A search of the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neuorosis Review Group (CCDANCTR) included all years to 11 August 2015. The CCDANCTR contains reports of randomised controlled trials derived from EMBASE (1974 to date), MEDLINE (1950 to date), PsycINFO (1967 to date) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). Furthermore, we searched the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Knowledge, The Cochrane Library and the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (to 26 May 2014). We also conducted a grey literature search and handsearched the reference lists of included studies and pertinent review articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: For efficacy, we included randomised controlled trials on adults with a history of winter-type SAD who were free of symptoms at the beginning of the study. For adverse events, we planned to include non-randomised studies. Eligible studies compared an SGA versus another SGA, placebo, light therapy, psychological therapy, melatonin, agomelatine or lifestyle changes. We also intended to compare SGAs in combination with any of the comparator interventions versus the same comparator intervention as monotherapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened abstracts and full-text publications and assigned risk of bias ratings based on the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We resolved disagreements by consensus or by consultation with a third party. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. When data were sufficient, we conducted random-effects (Mantel-Haenszel) meta-analyses. We assessed statistical heterogeneity by calculating the Chi(2) statistic and the Cochran Q. We used the I(2) statistic to estimate the magnitude of heterogeneity and examined potential sources of heterogeneity using sensitivity analysis or analysis of subgroups. We assessed publication bias by using funnel plots. However, given the small number of component studies in our meta-analyses, these tests have low sensitivity to detect publication bias. We rated the strength of the evidence using the system developed by the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Working Group. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 2986 citations after de-duplication of search results and excluded 2895 records during title and abstract reviews. We assessed 91 full-text papers for inclusion in the review, of which four publications (on three RCTs) providing data from 1100 people met eligibility criteria for this review. All three RCTs had methodological limitations due to high attrition rates.Overall moderate-quality evidence indicates that bupropion XL is an efficacious intervention for prevention of recurrence of depressive episodes in patients with a history of SAD (risk ratio (RR) 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44 to 0.72; three RCTs, 1100 participants). However, bupropion XL leads to greater risk of headaches (moderate-quality evidence), insomnia and nausea (both low-quality evidence) when compared with placebo. Numbers needed to treat for additional beneficial outcomes (NNTBs) vary by baseline risks. For a population with a yearly recurrence rate of 30%, the NNTB is 8 (95% CI 6 to 12). For populations with yearly recurrence rates of 40% and 50%, NNTBs are 6 (95% CI 5 to 9) and 5 (95% CI 4 to 7), respectively.We could find no studies on other SGAs and no studies comparing SGAs with other interventions of interest such as light therapy, psychological therapies, melatonin or agomelatine. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence indicates that bupropion XL is an effective intervention for prevention of recurrence of SAD. Nevertheless, even in a high-risk population, four of five patients will not benefit from preventive treatment with bupropion XL and will be at risk for harm. Clinicians need to discuss with patients advantages and disadvantages of preventive SGA treatment and might want to consider offering other potentially efficacious interventions, which might confer lower risk of adverse events. Given the lack of comparative evidence, the decision for or against initiating preventive treatment of SAD and the treatment selected should be strongly based on patient preferences.Future researchers need to assess the effectiveness and risk of harms of SGAs other than bupropion for prevention of SAD. Investigators also need to compare benefits and harms of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions.

Light therapy for preventing seasonal affective disorder.

BACKGROUND: Seasonal affective disorder (SAD) is a seasonal pattern of recurrent major depressive episodes that most commonly occurs during autumn or winter and remits in spring. The prevalence of SAD ranges from 1.5% to 9%, depending on latitude. The predictable seasonal aspect of SAD provides a promising opportunity for prevention. This review - one of four reviews on efficacy and safety of interventions to prevent SAD - focuses on light therapy as a preventive intervention. Light therapy is a non-pharmacological treatment that exposes people to artificial light. Mode of delivery (e.g. visors, light boxes) and form of light (e.g. bright white light) vary. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of light therapy (in comparison with no treatment, other types of light therapy, second-generation antidepressants, melatonin, agomelatine, psychological therapies, lifestyle interventions and negative ion generators) in preventing SAD and improving patient-centred outcomes among adults with a history of SAD. SEARCH METHODS: A search of the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neuorosis Review Group (CCDANCTR) included all years to 11 August 2015. The CCDANCTR contains reports of relevant randomised controlled trials derived from EMBASE (1974 to date), MEDLINE (1950 to date), PsycINFO (1967 to date) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trails (CENTRAL). Furthermore, we searched the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Web of Knowledge, The Cochrane Library and the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) (to 26 May 2014). We also conducted a grey literature search and handsearched the reference lists of all included studies and pertinent review articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: For efficacy, we included randomised controlled trials on adults with a history of winter-type SAD who were free of symptoms at the beginning of the study. For adverse events, we also intended to include non-randomised studies. We intended to include studies that compared any type of light therapy (e.g. bright white light, administered by visors or light boxes, infrared light, dawn stimulation) versus no treatment/placebo, second-generation antidepressants (SGAs), psychological therapies, melatonin, agomelatine, lifestyle changes, negative ion generators or another of the aforementioned light therapies. We also planned to include studies that looked at light therapy in combination with any comparator intervention and compared this with the same comparator intervention as monotherapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened abstracts and full-text publications against the inclusion criteria. Two review authors independently abstracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 2986 citations after de-duplication of search results. We excluded 2895 records during title and abstract review. We assessed 91 full-text papers for inclusion in the review, but only one study providing data from 46 people met our eligibility criteria. The included randomised controlled trial (RCT) had methodological limitations. We rated it as having high risk of performance and detection bias because of lack of blinding, and as having high risk of attrition bias because study authors did not report reasons for dropouts and did not integrate data from dropouts into the analysis.The included RCT compared preventive use of bright white light (2500 lux via visors), infrared light (0.18 lux via visors) and no light treatment. Overall, both forms of preventive light therapy reduced the incidence of SAD numerically compared with no light therapy. In all, 43% (6/14) of participants in the bright light group developed SAD, as well as 33% (5/15) in the infrared light group and 67% (6/9) in the non-treatment group. Bright light therapy reduced the risk of SAD incidence by 36%; however, the 95% confidence interval (CI) was very broad and included both possible effect sizes in favour of bright light therapy and those in favour of no light therapy (risk ratio (RR) 0.64, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.38). Infrared light reduced the risk of SAD by 50% compared with no light therapy, but in this case also the CI was too broad to allow precise estimations of effect size (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.17). Comparison of both forms of preventive light therapy versus each other yielded similar rates of incidence of depressive episodes in both groups (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.50 to 3.28). The quality of evidence for all outcomes was very low. Reasons for downgrading evidence quality included high risk of bias of the included study, imprecision and other limitations, such as self rating of outcomes, lack of checking of compliance throughout the study duration and insufficient reporting of participant characteristics.Investigators provided no information on adverse events. We could find no studies that compared light therapy versus other interventions of interest such as SGA, psychological therapies, melatonin or agomelatine. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence on light therapy as preventive treatment for patients with a history of SAD is limited. Methodological limitations and the small sample size of the only available study have precluded review author conclusions on effects of light therapy for SAD. Given that comparative evidence for light therapy versus other preventive options is limited, the decision for or against initiating preventive treatment of SAD and the treatment selected should be strongly based on patient preferences.

Psychological therapies for preventing seasonal affective disorder.

BACKGROUND: Seasonal affective disorder (SAD) is a seasonal pattern of recurrent major depressive episodes that most commonly occurs during autumn or winter and remits in spring. The prevalence of SAD ranges from 1.5% to 9%, depending on latitude. The predictable seasonal aspect of SAD provides a promising opportunity for prevention. This is one of four reviews on the efficacy and safety of interventions to prevent SAD; we focus on psychological therapies as preventive interventions. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of psychological therapies (in comparison with no treatment, other types of psychological therapy, second-generation antidepressants (SGAs), light therapy, melatonin or agomelatine or lifestyle interventions) in preventing SAD and improving patient-centred outcomes among adults with a history of SAD. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted a search of the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group Specialised Register (CCDANCTR) to 11 August 2015. The CCDANCTR contains reports of relevant randomised controlled trials from EMBASE (1974 to date), MEDLINE (1950 to date), PsycINFO (1967 to date) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). Furthermore, we searched the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Web of Knowledge, The Cochrane Library and the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) (to 26 May 2014). We conducted a grey literature search (e.g. in clinical trial registries) and handsearched the reference lists of all included studies and pertinent review articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: To examine efficacy, we planned to include randomised controlled trials on adults with a history of winter-type SAD who were free of symptoms at the beginning of the study. To examine adverse events, we intended to include non-randomised studies. We planned to include studies that compared psychological therapy versus any other type of psychological therapy, placebo, light therapy, SGAs, melatonin, agomelatine or lifestyle changes. We also intended to compare psychological therapy in combination with any of the comparator interventions listed above versus the same comparator intervention as monotherapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened abstracts and full-text publications against the inclusion criteria. Two review authors planned to independently extract data and assess risk of bias. We planned to pool data for meta-analysis when participant groups were similar and when studies assessed the same treatments versus the same comparator and provided similar definitions of outcome measures over a similar duration of treatment; however, we included no studies. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 2986 citations through electronic searches and reviews of reference lists after de-duplication of search results. We excluded 2895 records during title and abstract review and assessed 91 articles at full-text review for eligibility. We found no controlled studies on use of psychological therapy to prevent SAD and improve patient-centred outcomes in adults with a history of SAD. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Presently, there is no methodologically sound evidence available to indicate whether psychological therapy is or is not an effective intervention for prevention of SAD and improvement of patient-centred outcomes among adults with a history of SAD. Randomised controlled trials are needed to compare different types of psychological therapies and to compare psychological therapies versus placebo, light therapy, SGAs, melatonin, agomelatine or lifestyle changes for prevention of new depressive episodes in patients with a history of winter-type SAD.

Melatonin and agomelatine for preventing seasonal affective disorder.

BACKGROUND: Seasonal affective disorder (SAD) is a seasonal pattern of recurrent major depressive episodes that most commonly occurs during autumn or winter and remits in spring. The prevalence of SAD in the United States ranges from 1.5% to 9%, depending on latitude. The predictable seasonal aspect of SAD provides a promising opportunity for prevention. This is one of four reviews on the efficacy and safety of interventions to prevent SAD; we focus on agomelatine and melatonin as preventive interventions. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of agomelatine and melatonin (in comparison with each other, placebo, second-generation antidepressants, light therapy, psychological therapy or lifestyle interventions) in preventing SAD and improving patient-centred outcomes among adults with a history of SAD. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted a search of the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Review Group (CCDANCTR) to 11 August 2015. The CCDANCTR contains reports of relevant randomised controlled trials from EMBASE (1974 to date), MEDLINE (1950 to date), PsycINFO (1967 to date) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). Furthermore, we searched the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Web of Knowledge, The Cochrane Library and the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) (to 26 May 2014). We conducted a grey literature search (e.g. in clinical trial registries) and handsearched the reference lists of all included studies and pertinent review articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: To examine efficacy, we planned to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on adults with a history of winter-type SAD who were free of symptoms at the beginning of the study. To examine adverse events, we intended to include non-randomised studies. We planned to include studies that compared agomelatine versus melatonin, or agomelatine or melatonin versus placebo, any second-generation antidepressant (SGA), light therapy, psychological therapies or lifestyle changes. We also intended to compare melatonin or agomelatine in combination with any of the comparator interventions listed above versus the same comparator intervention as monotherapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened abstracts and full-text publications against the inclusion criteria. Two review authors planned to independently extract data and assess risk of bias of included studies. We planned to pool data for meta-analysis when participant groups were similar and when studies assessed the same treatments by using the same comparator and presented similar definitions of outcome measures over a similar duration of treatment; however, we identified no studies for inclusion. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 2986 citations through electronic searches and reviews of reference lists after de-duplication of search results. We excluded 2895 records during title and abstract review and assessed 91 articles at full-text level for eligibility. We identified no controlled studies on use of melatonin and agomelatine to prevent SAD and to improve patient-centred outcomes among adults with a history of SAD. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No available methodologically sound evidence indicates that melatonin or agomelatine is or is not an effective intervention for prevention of SAD and improvement of patient-centred outcomes among adults with a history of SAD. Lack of evidence clearly shows the need for well-conducted, controlled studies on this topic. A well-conducted RCT of melatonin or agomelatine for prevention of SAD would assess the comparative benefits and risks of these interventions against others currently used to treat the disorder.

Communication and dissemination strategies to facilitate the use of health-related evidence.

OBJECTIVES: This review examined how to best communicate and disseminate evidence, including uncertain evidence, to inform health care decisions. The review focused on three primary objectives--comparing the effectiveness of: (1) communicating evidence in various contents and formats that increase the likelihood that target audiences will both understand and use the information (KQ 1); (2) a variety of approaches for disseminating evidence from those who develop it to those who are expected to use it (KQ 2); and (3) various ways of communicating uncertainty-associated health-related evidence to different target audiences (KQ 3). A secondary objective was to examine how the effectiveness of communication and dissemination strategies varies across target audiences, including evidence translators, health educators, patients, and clinicians. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE®, the Cochrane Library, Cochrane Central Trials Registry, PsycINFO®, and the Web of Science. We used a variety of medical subject headings (MeSH terms) and major headings, and used free-text and title and abstract text-word searches. The search was limited to studies on humans published from 2000 to March 15, 2013, for communication and dissemination, given the prior systematic reviews, and from 1966 to March 15, 2013, for communicating uncertainty. REVIEW METHODS: We used standard Evidence-based Practice Center methods of dual review of abstracts, full-text articles, and abstractions, and quality ratings and group consensus to resolve disagreements. We used group consensus to grade strength of evidence. RESULTS: The search identified 4,152 articles (after removing duplicates) for all three KQs. After dual review at the title/abstract stage and full-text review stage, we retained 61 articles that directly (i.e., head to head) compared strategies to communicate and disseminate evidence. Across the KQs, many of the comparisons yielded insufficient evidence to draw firm conclusions. For KQ 1, we found that investigators frequently blend more than one communication strategy in interventions. For KQ 2, we found that, compared with single dissemination strategies, multicomponent dissemination strategies are more effective at enhancing clinician behavior, particularly for guideline adherence. Key findings for KQ 3 indicate that evidence on communicating overall strength of recommendation and precision was insufficient, but certain ways of communicating directness and net benefit may be helpful in reducing uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of comparative research evidence to inform communication and dissemination of evidence, including uncertain evidence, impedes timely clinician, patient, and policymaker awareness, uptake, and use of evidence to improve the quality of care. Expanding investment in communication, dissemination, and implementation research is critical to the identification of strategies to accelerate the translation of comparative effectiveness research into community and clinical practice and the direct benefit of patient care.

Comparative effectiveness of second-generation antidepressants for accompanying anxiety, insomnia, and pain in depressed patients: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) often suffer from accompanying symptoms that influence the choice of pharmacotherapy with second-generation antidepressants (SGAs). We conducted a systematic review to determine the comparative effectiveness of citalopram, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, paroxetine, sertraline, desvenlafaxine, duloxetine, venlafaxine, bupropion, mirtazapine, nefazodone, and trazodone, for accompanying anxiety, insomnia, and pain in patients with MDD. METHODS: We conducted searches in multiple databases including MEDLINE®, Embase, the Cochrane Library, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and PsycINFO, from 1980 through August 2011 and reviewed reference lists of pertinent articles. We dually reviewed abstracts, full-text articles, and abstracted data. We included randomized, head-to-head trials of SGAs of at least 6 weeks' duration. We grouped SGAs into three classes for the analysis: selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and others. We graded the strength of the evidence as high, moderate, low, or very low based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: We located 19 head-to-head trials in total: 11 on anxiety, six on insomnia, and four on pain. For the majority of comparisons, the strength of the evidence was moderate or low: evidence is weakened by inconsistency and imprecision. For treating anxiety, insomnia, and pain moderate evidence suggests that the SSRIs do not differ. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence guiding the selection of an SGA based on accompanying symptoms of depression is limited. Very few trials were designed and adequately powered to answer questions about accompanying symptoms; analyses were generally of subgroups in larger MDD trials.

Clinical heterogeneity in systematic reviews and health technology assessments: synthesis of guidance documents and the literature.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to synthesize best practices for addressing clinical heterogeneity in systematic reviews and health technology assessments (HTAs). METHODS: We abstracted information from guidance documents and methods manuals made available by international organizations that develop systematic reviews and HTAs. We searched PubMed® to identify studies on clinical heterogeneity and subgroup analysis. Two authors independently abstracted and assessed relevant information. RESULTS: Methods manuals offer various definitions of clinical heterogeneity. In essence, clinical heterogeneity is considered variability in study population characteristics, interventions, and outcomes across studies. It can lead to effect-measure modification or statistical heterogeneity, which is defined as variability in estimated treatment effects beyond what would be expected by random error alone. Clinical and statistical heterogeneity are closely intertwined but they do not have a one-to-one relationship. The presence of statistical heterogeneity does not necessarily indicate that clinical heterogeneity is the causal factor. Methodological heterogeneity, biases, and random error can also cause statistical heterogeneity, alone or in combination with clinical heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: Identifying potential modifiers of treatment effects (i.e., effect-measure modifiers) is important for researchers conducting systematic reviews and HTAs. Recognizing clinical heterogeneity and clarifying its implications helps decision makers to identify patients and patient populations who benefit the most, who benefit the least, and who are at greatest risk of experiencing adverse outcomes from a particular intervention.

A systematic review of outcomes of maternal weight gain according to the Institute of Medicine recommendations: birthweight, fetal growth, and postpartum weight retention.

This systematic review focuses on outcomes of gestational weight gain, specifically birthweight, fetal growth, and postpartum weight retention, for singleton pregnancies with respect to the 1990 Institute of Medicine weight gain recommendations. A total of 35 studies met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed. There was strong evidence to support associations between excessive gestational weight gain and increased birthweight and fetal growth (large for gestational age) as well as inadequate gestational weight gain and decreased birthweight and fetal growth (small for gestational age). There was moderate evidence to support the association between excessive gestational weight gain and postpartum weight retention. Clear clinical recommendations based on this review are challenging because of several limitations in the literature. Improvements in future research include the use of consistent definitions of gestational weight gain and outcomes of interest, assessment of confounders, and better collection of weight and weight gain data.

Outcomes of maternal weight gain.

OBJECTIVES: The RTI International-University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Evidence-based Practice Center (RTI-UNC EPC) systematically reviewed evidence on outcomes of gestational weight gain and their confounders and effect modifiers, outcomes of weight gain within or outside the 1990 Institute of Medicine (IOM) guidelines, risks and benefits of weight gain recommendations, and anthropometric measures of weight gain. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE Cochrane Collaboration resources, Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature, and Embase. REVIEW METHODS: We included studies published in English from 1990 through October 2007. We excluded studies with low sample size (based on study design: case series <100 subjects and cohorts <40 subjects). RESULTS: Overall, strong evidence supported an association between gestational weight gains and the following outcomes: preterm birth, total birthweight, low birthweight (<2,500 g), macrosomia, large-for-gestational-age (LGA) infants, and small-for-gestational-age (SGA) infants; moderate evidence supported an association for cesarean delivery and intermediate-term weight retention (3 months to 3 years postpartum). The studies reviewed provided strong evidence for the independent association of pregravid weight status and outcomes, moderate evidence for age and parity, and weak evidence for race. Regarding outcomes of weight gain within or outside 1990 IOM guidelines, moderate to strong evidence suggests an association between weight gain below IOM recommendations and preterm birth, low birthweight, SGA birthweights, and failure to initiate breastfeeding, and strong evidence for the association between weight gain above IOM recommendations and high birthweight, macrosomia, and LGA birthweights. Moderate evidence supports an association between weight gain above IOM guidelines and cesarean delivery and postpartum weight retention in the short, intermediate, and long term. Included research is inadequate for objective assessments of the range of harms and benefits of providing all women, irrespective of age, race or ethnicity, or pregravid body mass index (BMI), with the same recommendation for weight gain in pregnancy. CONCLUSIONS: Gestational weight gain is associated with some infant and maternal outcomes. One weight gain recommendation for all women is not supported by the evidence identified in this review. To understand fully the impact of gestational weight gain on short- and long-term outcomes for women and their offspring will require that researchers use consistent definitions of weight gain during pregnancy, better address confounders in their analyses, improve study designs and statistical models, and conduct studies with longer followup.

Systematic review: comparative effectiveness and harms of disease-modifying medications for rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: The comparative effectiveness of rheumatoid arthritis therapies is uncertain. PURPOSE: To compare the benefits and harms of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for adults with rheumatoid arthritis. DATA SOURCES: Records limited to the English language and studies of adults were identified by using MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts from 1980 to September 2007. STUDY SELECTION: Two persons independently selected relevant head-to-head trials and prospective cohort studies with at least 100 participants and 12-week follow-up and relevant good- or fair-quality meta-analyses that compared benefits or harms of 11 drug therapies. For harms, they included retrospective cohort studies. DATA EXTRACTION: Information on study design, interventions, outcomes, and quality were extracted according to a standard protocol. DATA SYNTHESIS: Head-to-head trials (n = 23), mostly examining synthetic DMARDs, showed no clinically important differences in efficacy among synthetic DMARDs (limited to methotrexate, leflunomide, and sulfasalazine) or among anti-tumor necrosis factor drugs (adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab). Monotherapy with anti-tumor necrosis factor drugs resulted in better radiographic outcomes than did methotrexate but no important differences in clinical outcomes (for example, 20%, 50%, or 70% improvement according to American College of Rheumatology response criteria). Various combinations of biological DMARDs plus methotrexate improved clinical response rates and functional outcomes more than monotherapy with either methotrexate or biological DMARDs. In patients whose monotherapy failed, combination therapy with synthetic DMARDs improved response rates. Numbers and types of short-term adverse events were similar for biological and synthetic DMARDs. The evidence was insufficient to draw conclusions about differences for rare but serious adverse events for biological DMARDs. LIMITATION: Most studies were short-term efficacy trials conducted in selected populations with few comorbid conditions. CONCLUSION: Limited available comparative evidence does not support one monotherapy over another for adults with rheumatoid arthritis. Although combination therapy is more effective for patients whose monotherapy fails, the evidence is insufficient to draw firm conclusions about whether one combination or treatment strategy is better than another or is the best treatment for early rheumatoid arthritis.

Management of uterine fibroids: an update of the evidence.

OBJECTIVES: The RTI International-University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Evidence-based Practice Center (RTI-UNC EPC) systematically updated evidence on the management of uterine fibroids, specifically incidence and prevalence of fibroids, treatment outcomes, comparisons of treatment, modifiers of outcomes, and costs. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE(R), Cochrane Collaboration resources, and Embase. REVIEW METHODS: We included studies published in English from February 2000 through August 2006. We excluded studies with low sample size (based on study design, cases series < 100 and cohorts < 40) or lack of relevance to uterine fibroids. Of 107 included studies, 3 were good quality, 56 fair, and 48 poor. RESULTS: The cumulative incidence by age 50 is 70 percent to 80 percent; black women are more likely to get fibroids at younger ages. Appearance of new fibroids and growth of existing fibroids after treatment are poorly studied. Trials of preoperative medical management indicate that treatment reduces fibroid volume but do not provide sufficient evidence of improvement in important operative outcomes. When women are treated for reasons other than symptom relief, such as when pregnancy is desired, weak evidence supports treating submucous fibroids via hysteroscopy. No well-conducted trials in U.S. populations directly compared treatment options, including the option of expectant management, or followed women to determine whether the intervention met their treatment objectives. Common procedures such as hysterectomy and myomectomy, including choice among types of myomectomy, still cannot be meaningfully compared. Studies comparing uterine artery embolization (UAE) with other procedures reported procedure time and length of stay favoring UAE, but inconsistency of the direction of effect for complications and absence of key information on longer-term outcomes suggest that this evidence base is inadequate to comment on the relative risks and benefits of UAE versus hysterectomy or myomectomy. Costs of fibroid treatment, despite shorter average lengths of stay, are rising. CONCLUSIONS: The dearth of high-quality evidence supporting the effectiveness of most interventions for uterine fibroids is remarkable, given how common this problem is. The current state of the literature does not permit definitive conclusions about benefit, harm, or relative costs to help guide women's choices. Significant research gaps include well-conducted trials in U.S. populations that directly compare interventions on short- and, especially, long-term outcomes, studies on therapeutics for medical management, and information on treatment decisions for women who desire a pregnancy.